Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Donald Trump's Hush Money Trial; Major Trump Supporters Charged for Subverting Elections in Arizona; Third Day of Criminal Trial, Trump Scheduled to Appear in Court; Trump's Pivotal Day as Supreme Court Weighs on Claim of Immunity and Hush Money Cases Continues. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired April 25, 2024 - 08:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[08:30:00]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, welcome back. You are looking right here. These are live pictures outside of Trump Tower. Once again, Donald Trump is soon going to be leaving and headed back to court for his criminal trial in New York.

Meanwhile, in Washington, the Supreme Court is soon going to be hearing arguments on whether Donald Trump can hold absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. Huge questions with big implications from that. We are watching it all and we'll bring it to you live when it all happens.

The other big news this morning, several of Donald Trump's closest allies are now facing charges in Arizona for their role in the 2020 plot to overturn the election results. This includes Former White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, as well as Former Trump attorney, Rudy Giuliani. Yes, more charges for them. The Arizona attorney general about all of this says that they deceived the citizens of Arizona.

Also indicted is Boris Epshteyn, a former White House aide who is still one of Trump's closest advisers. Notably, Donald Trump himself is not charged in this indictment, however listed as co-conspirator number one.

CNN's Zach Cohen is in Phoenix. He's been looking through it all for us. Zach, talk us through what this indictment says.

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Kate, this indictment contains nine counts, including multiple felonies. It alleges that 11 fake electors from Arizona and seven of Trump's closest allies, people that were in his immediate orbit after the 2020 election. They engaged in an alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results by deceiving the people of Arizona into thinking Trump won this state when he actually had not.

And as you mentioned, this indictment does charge several bold-faced names, including Mark Meadows, Trump's former White House chief of staff, includes Rudy Giuliani, Trump's former personal attorney, includes John Eastman, who was -- that conservative attorney that's been labeled as the architect of the fake electors' plot. But it also includes some people that have not been charged in connection with their alleged role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election. As you mentioned, Boris Epshteyn, who is one of Trump's closest aides to this day is charged in this indictment, as well as Christina Bobb, who was a Trump attorney -- a former Trump attorney. She's also a former "OAN" host. And notably, she was just actually appointed to a job at the Republican National Committee as counsel for election integrity. You know, ironically enough here.

But look, I want to -- Republicans in the state are already pushing back on this indictment. The attorney general here is a Democrat. And, the Arizona GOP is saying that this is basically a politically motivated distraction. They say in a statement, a blatant -- that this was a blatant and unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial power aimed solely at distracting the public.

Jake Hoffman, one of those fake electors from Arizona, who's also a sitting state senator, also pushing back and saying that this was politically motivated. And being very clear that he says, let me be unequivocal, I am innocent of any crime in this case.

But look the wheels of justice will play out here, as we've seen in other states, Michigan, Georgia. And you did say that Trump is not indicted in this case, but he is listed as unindicted co-conspirator number one, and the indictment makes it very clear that this alleged conspiracy was carried out on his behalf.

BOLDUAN: The beginning of a very long legal road ahead for so many people. It's good to see you, Zach. very much. Zach's in Phoenix, Arizona for us.

John.

[08:35:00]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN NEWS CENTRAL CO-ANCHOR: We are standing by to see Donald Trump leave for his New York criminal trial. We do understand -- there he is. He's leaving Trump Tower right now, let's watch.

There he goes behind those buses, behind those vehicles, getting into his SUV, and he will drive down to the New York criminal court. A really big day of testimony. David Pecker is on the stand. When we last heard from Pecker on Tuesday, he was just beginning to tell the story of Karen McDougal, the former Playboy playmate, and the "Enquirer's" efforts to bury her story about an alleged relationship with Trump.

This gets to the heart of the criminal case against him. We will bring it to you live as it happens.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:40:00]

BERMAN: All right. Happening now, Donald Trump is on the move. Moments ago, he left Trump Tower. He's on his way to the New York criminal court where the criminal case against him resumes very shortly. Former "National Enquirer" publisher David Pecker on the stand when court begins, left us with a cliffhanger just beginning to talk about Karen McDougal, the Playboy playmate.

He squashed the story, the allegation she had that she had a relationship with Donald Trump. And of course, as soon as court begins this morning, we could learn the judge's ruling in the gag order against Donald Trump. Whether Trump has violated it.

CNN's Kristen Holmes outside the court. You know, within an hour, things could get very interesting, Kristen.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN U.S. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. And actually, Donald Trump did a campaign stop earlier this morning. He stopped by a construction site where he talked to construction workers, as well as union members. And I asked him particularly about David Pecker. When was the last time he spoke to Pecker? Remember, the two of them used to be very close. He wouldn't answer that question.

I asked, what do you thought of the testimony so far? All he would say is that he believed that Pecker was a good guy, that he's been nice to him, and then essentially walked away after answering that question. So, we'll see if he takes any other questions in the hallway if he stops to speak or if he got his fill during that campaign stop.

But the other thing he commented on was he was asked if he would pay the fine if it was found he violated the gag order. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND U.S. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Oh, I have no idea. I have no idea. They've taken my constitutional right away with a gag order. That's all it is. It's election interference. This whole thing is election interference.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: And obviously, John, we've heard this time and time again. This is the argument that Donald Trump and his campaign are making, is that essentially all of these cases are because nobody, Democrats in particular, want him running for president. As we know, these cases are not linked to Joe Biden. There has been no evidence of that, but it is something that he continues to say.

The other thing I want to mention here is, while Donald Trump might be sitting in this courtroom today, he has been laser focused, on what is going on in Washington with the Supreme Court, he talked about that today as well. Saying that he believed the justices were smart, that they were going to do the right thing. And keep in mind here, this is a big day for him, particularly when you look to that Supreme Court and he will be looking at these three justices that he appointed hearing those oral arguments.

BERMAN: Kristen Holmes for us outside the courthouse in New York. Kristen, we will see you again shortly. Thank you.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: Joining us right now is CNN Legal Analyst and Former Federal Prosecutor, Jennifer Rodgers. And also, the former lead investigator for the January 6th Congressional Committee, Tim Heaphy. It's great to see you guys. Thank you so much.

A lot to get through, but let's start with where Kristen left off. What should people expect in court this morning in New York, Jennifer? I mean, prosecutors haven't yet gotten to Pecker's involvement with Stormy Daniels. That has to happen today, yes?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST AND FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: For sure. First, they're going to start with Karen McDougal because they were intimately involved with that one. They paid the money for that one. So, he's going to take us through that catch and kill arrangement. And I'm looking for whether they elicit from David Pecker or whether he thought that Karen McDougal was telling the truth about their relationship. They paid her $150,000, that's a lot of money, then they will get into Stormy Daniels.

Now, Pecker and AMI didn't ultimately pay that. But I'm interested in all of the background about why not. Is it because they were on the hook for paying the prior ones? They didn't want to pay this one. But all of those conversations, particularly any with Donald Trump about the catch and kill with Stormy Daniels for sure.

BOLDUAN: Yes, but let me ask you about -- let me ask you this, I have heard some attorneys, many -- mostly defense attorneys saying that so far, what David Pecker has provided from the stand and described in his testimony is immoral, wrong, gross, maybe. But he hasn't laid out anything illegal or criminal yet. Do you agree? Does that -- if so, does that change today?

RODGERS: Personally.

BOLDUAN: OK.

RODGERS: Here's why. The crime is the falsification of business records. He has not provided evidence about that. But that crime, of course, is enhanced if it was in connection with or to cover up a different crime. The different crime is the conspiracy around trying to manipulate the election. David Pecker has provided very important evidence about that piece. So, it does go to the crime, but not the underlying crime that's charged in the indictment.

BOLDUAN: Tim, let's turn to the Supreme Court and the oral arguments we're going to hear in Washington today. What do you see as the possible outcomes from oral arguments? And what do you think of the case, given all of your experience investigating much of what is charged by Jack Smith in the federal election interference case?

TIM HEAPHY, FORMER LEAD INVESTIGATOR, JANUARY 6TH COMMITTEE: Yes. Kate, so there are a couple fundamental questions. The threshold one is, is there any sort of immunity available to the former president? And even if so, question two is, well, even if there's some immunity for official acts, are the acts charged here within that zone of the official?

[08:45:00]

Mark Meadows, if you recall, in Georgia, made very similar arguments that he couldn't be charged or he should be charged, if at all, in federal court because everything that he did with respect to the allegations in the indictment was pursuant to his official capacity. And the judge said, meh, it can't be that everything you do as White House Chief of Staff is part of your official business.

So, even if the Supreme Court recognizes that there's some zone of conduct which could be immune from prosecution, Jack Smith then would have to prove, well, these are outside of that zone. So, there's sort of threshold question. Is there immunity at all? Government says, absolutely not. Even so, question two is, do these acts fall within that zone?

BOLDUAN: You know, this may feel like I'm jumping around, but it's all wrapped up into one, right? We're talking about -- because now we have this indictment handed up in Arizona, Tim. And one of the people indicted is Mark Meadows, yet again charged. He was also charged in Georgia, as we know.

Talk to me -- I want to play for you what Cassidy Hutchinson, who was a very important and star witness for the investigation that you helped lead, the congressional investigation into January 6th. She was on with CNN last night and was asked about Mark Meadows. And basically, what he knew when and the involvement in -- I'm just going to say all of this for broad strokes. Let me play this for you. Speaking with Kaitlan Collins.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE AIDE: Mark was involved in almost everything. He was feeding a lot of information to a lot of different people. So, some days I felt that Mark would acknowledge that Mr. Trump had lost the 2020 election and Mark had believed that himself. But then there would be other days while I was working for Mark where I would, sort of, question my own belief in that because it seemed like he was also feeling the conspiracy theories and the lies surrounding the 2020 election.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: And Tim, the question around this is, what did Mark Meadows really think? That the election was stolen or the election was lost? And how is that relevant to all this?

HEAPHY: Well, hard to say what he really thinks because as Ms. Hutchinson said last night, we found that he said different things to different people, Kate. He at times would say to Mitch McConnell, for example, oh, we're -- he's getting there, meaning the president. We're getting him around to realization that he's lost and committing to a transfer of power. Then other days he would be texting with Ginni Thomas about, keep up the good fight and we're going to see this through to the end.

So, he was sort of chameleon like in what he said to different audiences depending upon what he thought they wanted to hear. But as what Cassidy said is crucial in terms of access. He was always in the room when things happened. There was no one who was closer to President Trump over the course of the post-election period before January 6th than Mark Meadows.

So, if he were to provide truthful information to prosecutors, now with the leverage of yet another criminal case, there's strong incentive to do that, he could be the most significant witness for any of these prosecutors.

BOLDUAN: And Jennifer, on Arizona, honestly, this may not -- I've been kind of thinking about it this morning is, the Georgia indictment and I'm -- I've been calling this a Georgia indictment 2.0 without Trump in charge. The Georgia indictment, that came down in August. Why this now? Does that say anything, this Arizona one?

RODGERS: Well, each state, of course, had its own factual pattern, right, with what happened with the fake electors, and they're all different. Arizona, actually, is one of the stronger ones because those fake electors didn't even include conditional language when they sent in their slate, right? They said, we are the electors, and we vote for Trump and Pence.

So, it's a strong case and of course in each of these states they're evaluating it on their own. This is not a RICO case. They've decided not to charge Former President Trump, so I expect it will proceed more smoothly and more quickly than Georgia has, which is good news. But this is just each individual prosecutor in these states saying, we're not going to stand for this. We have to do something about it.

BOLDUAN: That's really fascinating. Thank you so much, Jennifer. It's great to see you. Tim, thank you as always. Really appreciate your time.

HEAPHY: Thank you.

BOLDUAN: John.

BERMAN: All right. We are standing by to see if Donald Trump will be held in contempt of court in the New York criminal case. That ruling could come at any minute.

We're also standing by to see if the U.S. Supreme Court will help Donald Trump in his efforts to push the federal election subversion case past the November election. This is CNN's special live coverage.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:50:00]

BOLDUAN: All right. You're -- these are live pictures of Downtown in Lower Manhattan. This is Donald Trump's motorcade once again, now making the familiar final turns and drive to the Manhattan courthouse, where another day of his criminal trial is about to get underway. We will see once again if Donald Trump is going to be speaking to cameras. He's already spoken to reporters early this morning when he made an impromptu campaign stop in New York City.

Keeping a very close eye on that because it is a big day for Donald Trump. His criminal trial, about to get back underway. As -- also, as the Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments about whether Donald Trump is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution. Should be. No matter how often he says it, the justices now get to decide if that is actually going to happen.

We also have new polling from Quinnipiac, giving some insight into how voters are feeling about the former president being on trial. We've been tracking this, and we have a new addition and some new data to bring in. Bring in our Harry Enten, because you've been tracking this for us, Harry. Is -- are you seeing movement in how people, voters, are feeling about Donald Trump in this hush money trial?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATE REPORTER: We actually are seeing some movement. So, you know, I think it was a little skeptical that we'd see some movement, but the New York hush money charges are very serious. Here, we were in September, right? It was just 32 percent. Look at where we are now. We're up to 40 percent. It's still not a majority, right?

Most people do not, in fact, see the charges as very serious. But we are seeing some movement, and this, of course, is important because, right now, this is the only case that's actually moving forward. We'll see if that continues to be the case going forward. But if we're looking for electoral movement, the fact that we now see more voters saying that these charges are very serious is something important going forward on the campaign trail.

BOLDUAN: But Harry, where is the movement? Like, take me into that 40.

ENTEN: Yes, is it Republicans?

BOLDUAN: Yes.

ENTEN: I think that's the real question. Is the real question, are Republicans moving at all? So, Trump voters, would a conviction in the hush money case impact their 2024 vote? Turns out Trump voters are not moving. All right. So, in March of 2024, it was 62 percent who said no difference. In April of 2024, 62 percent said no difference.

In fact, the only real movement that we see is less likely to back Trump went from 10 percent in March of 2024 to now in April of 2024, it's now five percent. So, in fact, Trump voters actually say they're more likely to back him if there's a conviction in a hush money case. Not less likely, so that's in fact the difference from movement that we're seeing overall, where in fact it's Democrats and Independents who are in fact saying, you know what, these charges are very serious, but of course many of those are not backing Trump at this point.

BOLDUAN: Real quick and finally, what about the question of Donald Trump's immunity? The immunity he says -- absolute immunity that he says he has --

ENTEN: Yes, do --

BOLDUAN: -- down before the Supreme Court.

ENTEN: Exactly. Do Americans believe that he should have criminal immunity? The vast majority, 56 percent say, no, just 28 percent say, yes. So, if the Supreme Court decides that he should have absolute immunity, that is something that flies very much in the face of public opinion.

The vast majority say, he should not have that immunity. And I will note, you know, that's important because the federal January 6th charges, the vast majority or the clear majority of Americans say that those charges are very serious, Kate.

BOLDUAN: All right. Thanks for keeping track of it all, Harry.

ENTEN: Thank you.

BOLDUAN: I really appreciate it.

John.

BERMAN: With us now is former Trump National Security Adviser, Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton. And I should say, a long- time, big-time lawyer as well.

[08:55:00]

And it's in that capacity, Ambassador Bolton, I want to ask you, to what extent do Donald Trump's actions surrounding January 6th fall within the boundaries of official acts, to your finely tuned legal mind?

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N. AND FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I don't think they do, which is why a lot of the discussion about the case that will be argued today in the Supreme Court, I think is kind of beside the point. I think Trump will certainly lose on the absolute immunity claim. It's -- there's just no possibility that will win.

The question of whether there should be presidential immunity and some qualified sense for official acts, I think is an important question and one that is key to the strength of the presidency within the constitutional system. But having read the indictment in the January 6th case, I'd have to say, I don't see anything in there that constitutes an official act.

So, I don't think you get to the question, or at least I don't think the Supreme Court has to get to the question of the extent of the immunity. It can simply say, these are not official acts, these are the acts of a candidate which are permissible to an incumbent president, up until the point that crossed the line of criminal behavior. That would -- that could lead to a quick resolution of the case and a resumption of proceedings in the trial court. BERMAN: Well, a quick resolution. How would you assess the urgency with which the Supreme Court has acted on this so far?

BOLTON: Well, I don't think it's acted with the urgency it should. I think these are two separate questions, though, I think moving quickly and getting the result, whatever it is, is important for the country so that we'll see if there's going to be a verdict in the trial. But I don't think urgency ought to affect the substance of the decision. And on that, there could be a lot of division. I mean, we'll have some indications of it in the argument today.

BERMAN: Can you just elaborate further on what you were saying about why what you believe Trump did around January 6th was as a candidate and not as a president doing official acts?

BOLTON: Well, let -- let's say he -- let's say it was 2016 and he was running as a private citizen, but we had the facts of the 2020 election and he had lost narrowly in some swing states. If he could turn a few of them around, he would get to 270 electoral votes. So, he was calling people, he was mobilizing people, he was sending people into court.

All of that's permissible. In fact, I can speak as a 33 day in Florida veteran of the 2000 recount between, Gore and Bush, what Gore did in Florida to try and change the election day count in Florida was permissible and a sitting president could do the same thing. But that has nothing to do with the official acts of the presidency. And I think that's what the court should focus on today. We'll see if that happens.

BERMAN: Now, I -- and this is a hypothetical and maybe even not the most likely hypothetical. But if the court does expand, expand the permissibility in terms of what a president could be immune for, what would that mean for Donald Trump if he is elected to a new term? How concerned are you that what a President Trump would do with greater immunity?

BOLTON: Well, I think presidents have acted for some time as if they had at least some kind of immunity, and I think that's right for their official acts. I don't think it's -- it should be subject to second guessing later. Trump, for example, uses the argument that Harry Truman could have been prosecuted for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and all I can say is, not in any American court. That is -- those are functions the president holds as commander in chief and chief executive officer in the government.

So -- I mean, there are a lot of hypotheticals about what could change. In Trump's case, I think the court can decide this very cleanly, very simply, and very quickly, if it just says, what to me is obvious, that you don't have to get into the scope of official immunity. You don't need a separate hearing in the court before you actually get to trial on the immunity issues. None of what Trump is alleged to have done, with respect to January 6th, has anything to do with his official duties as president.

BERMAN: Very quickly, Ginni Thomas, the wife of Clarence Thomas, made phone calls to state and local officials, prior to January 6th in an effort to try to overthrow the election or get rid of election results there. Do you believe Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from the arguments today?

BOLTON: No, I don't. And I think people need to be very careful before they start saying the justices have to recuse based on what their spouse has done. I think people ought to be very careful of that. And I say it in full disclosure. I was a law school classmate of Clarence's. I've known Ginni for many years.

BERMAN: Ambassador Bolton, great to see you this morning. Appreciate your time as always. Thank you.

BOLDUAN: It was very interesting to have him on. Thank you all so much for joining us today.

[09:00:00]